Cartoons and common sense

Is this yours?From a prominent Muslim newspaper. As deep as anti-Semitism runs within the Islamic world, I don't understand from what basis they have any right to claim offense from a few cartoons. If modern Islam didn't alternate between outrageously offensive statements towards Jews and the tacit approval of others making those statements, they'd have a considerably higher moral basis with which to demand that their offense be taken seriously.I applaud the cartoons. I hope they piss off the whole Middle East. I hope you go on making offensive cartoons against Jews, too. And atheists like me. Getting pissed and pissing other people off is the sign of participation in a free society of adults. Mass murder, arson, and threats of more violence are the signs of a society of children.

My morality isn't relevant. According to the morality of the mob in question, as well as prominent figures in other religions (most notably the Pope), offending someone's religious sensibilities is an insufferable moral infraction.Which is a position that other people would be inclined to take more respectfully if arab Muslim culture didn't disparage the Jews at every avaliable opportunity. I'm simply pointing out the highly ironic and humerous hypocrisy of the Muslims in question and their defenders. Well, now, clearly these Muslims wish to live in a society where they are free to offend Jews or any other religion to any extent; that they cannot stand it when the same treatment is applied to them demonstrates the objective bankrupcy of their views. Their own morality (if that's what you want to call it) is self-contradictory, therefore ill-formed, and therefore invalid, objectively.

I'll assume that you're not referring to me, because my disdain for Christian outrage is pretty well-known. And, indeed, I can't figure out who you're referring to, since any time Christians mobilize against something that offends their sensibilities, most people here are disdainful of their efforts, especially when it results in censorship that the rest of us have to live with. (I was kind of looking forward to watching "Book of Daniel." Thanks a lot, Christians.)But I haven't seen Christians burning cars and embassies and holding signs promising indiscriminate murder and bloodshed. Not that Christians don't threaten murder and bloodshed, they're just usually more targeted about it, and they don't take to the streets about it, they just say it to each other. Yes. And a whole lot of people, who were of a mind to be used, are being used. Did you know that, in order to drum up this level of response, the Muslim agitators had to add three additional fake cartoons to the originals? Most of these people are upset at "idolatry" that their own people are responsible for. The anti-Semetic content of their signs and demonstrations. For instance: I don't live in Israel. When we fail to put them into action, or allow them to become diluted, I'd say that becomes the case.

What I don't get is, these weren't Jewish cartoonists.Like, that's the reflexive response of Islamacism? Blame the Jews?

Being an adult means learning to deal with the outrage in a way besides the indiscriminate murder of innocents. I have no sympathy for the idea that people are "driven" by the West to commit barbarities.Understand that people exist - like me - who won't hesitate to use force to neutralize threats. That includes anybody who joins a terrorist organization to murder people because they saw some fake cartoons that made them mad. Be provoked. Why should any of us care? If anybody - Muslim terrorists, or Christian terrorists, or anybody else - rolls up in here to cause trouble, they're going to be destroyed. Utterly. There's simply no opposing the weight of American force (when we can get around to pointing it in the right direction.)

Well, then we're in agreement that this really isn't the case:

quote:

---

While many nations where Christianity is the dominant religion also have a tradition of separation of church and state which dates back to the Enlightenment, many of them still have historical blasphemy laws on the books which were once enacted to protect Christian beliefs, and which are occasionally enforced. As an example, there are blasphemy laws in Norway. However, the last person to be charged for blasphemy was Arnulf verland in 1933; he was acquitted.

​

In March 2005, Austrian writer Gerhard Haderer published the book "The life of Jesus" in which he depicted Jesus smoking a joint, and as a surfer on Lake Gennesaret. He was called for a hearing in Greece and was sentenced for 6 months for blasphemy; the sentence was later revoked.

​

Countries with strong Christian fundamentalist movements, such as the United States, have also seen protests against movies, books, and other publications considered blasphemous or pornographic by these movements, sometimes culminating in public book burnings and calls for censorship. For example, the release of The Last Temptation of Christ resulted in death threats against director Martin Scorsese and one incident in France of a cinema showing the movie being attacked with molotov cocktails, injuring thirteen people, four of whom were burned severely.

---

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy - WikipediaYeah, I take that back. As I quoted above there's certainly instances of Christians taking to the streets and killing people.I just needed to have my memory refreshed, I guess. If you have some indication that there's two sets of protests occuring, one of anti-Semites and one of Muslims that have respect for Jews, I guess I'd like to see some indication of that.But the reason that people go out in mobs and demonstrate en masse in the first place is exactly because they wish to demonstrate that they share the beliefs and positions of the mass. If some protestors are making an effort to seperate themselves from the anti-semitic mob, and that effort is simply being unreported by the media, then no problem. I'd like to see some indication of that. No, I'm pointing out that people who take delight in offending the religious sensibilities of other people - and I think it's been pretty well-documented how anti-Semitism is a major feature of Muslim culture in the Middle East - should not expect to be taken seriously when they complain about how their religious sensibilities are offended.It isn't that Muslims don't stand up for Jews. It's that a lot of very vocal Muslims absolutely hate Jews. Sure. Just because I don't protest against Israel doesn't mean I support their policies. I understand your point.But I also don't go to demonstrations in support of Israel. I don't stand under signs promising violence against Palestinians. And if I were at a protest, and somebody near me held up a sign proclaiming their support for Israel, and I refused to distance myself from that person, I wouldn't begrudge someone the conclusion that I held the same views as that individual.That is why people demonstrate as a mass - to show how they all agree on a particular position.

Is there any kind of visible, vocal support for Jews that you're aware of within the mainstream Muslim world? As pleased as I am when European or American imams speak out for conciliation, I don't really consider those figures as mouthpieces for mainstream Islam in the Middle East - for one thing, they don't live there, and they're not considered mainstream by mainstream Muslims in the Middle east, much as conservative Christians don't really consider the Rev. Jesse Jackson to speak for them. If you find it contentious to state that people come out and demonstrate together because they share a particular position and wish to advocate it, or give that impression at least, then we're once again at the point where discussion isn't possible, because words don't mean the same thing to you as they do to the rest of us. I'm pretty sure I said "the Middle East"; maybe it wasn't clear to you that in using that phrase I'm referring to the portion of the planet encompassing Syria, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and other such countries. So the fact that American Muslims are not anti-Semite doesn't seem to be a relevant fact.When the leader of Iran can come out and speak about how the very Earth itself "groans under the weight of the Jew" and pledges to be the one to lead the charge to eliminate this curse of creation, and then is roundly praised for taking such a bold stance, it's pretty clear that anti-Semitism is a major feature of Muslim culture in the Middle East. I mean, it's just beyond question. I'm glad that this acrimonious situation is recent - a fact I already knew - but the fact that it's a recent trend doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I don't know that we do either. I know that the religious right often tries to portray opposition to Israeli policy as inherently anti-semetic, but it has always seemed to me that nobody's fooled by that rhetoric.If the rhetoric of the mainstream Muslim Middle East was merely anti-Israel, I would be fine with that. But it isn't. It's Jews that they hate; Israel they only hate as the gravest Jewish offense against them. If Israel didn't exist right now the leader of Iran would still be promising to finish what Hitler started. Oh, in any number of ways. I might simply say "I'm not with this asshole." If he didn't represent the views of the majority, we might band together and make it clear that he should go find another place to protest. Or I might make a sign with a message that clearly opposed his. In this example I might have a sign that said "Tolerance for all religions" or some such.It happens all the time at demonstrations; lines are drawn, oppositions are set up, messages are countered with other messages. That's how you could tell the difference between the Phelps bigots and the decent people at Matthew Shepard's funeral - the Phelps clowns were the ones with the "God hates fags" signs, and the decent people were the ones hiding that message with their costume angel wings.

That's nonsense, Holmes. I don't know how I could have been more specific that I was referring to the middle east:

quote:

---

Which is a position that other people would be inclined to take more respectfully if arab Muslim culture didn't disparage the Jews at every avaliable opportunity.

---

quote:

---

and I think it's been pretty well-documented how anti-Semitism is a major feature of Muslim culture in the Middle East

---

quote:

---

As pleased as I am when European or American imams speak out for conciliation, I don't really consider those figures as mouthpieces for mainstream Islam in the Middle East - for one thing, they don't live there, and they're not considered mainstream by mainstream Muslims in the Middle east, much as conservative Christians don't really consider the Rev. Jesse Jackson to speak for them.

---

Since mainstream America apparently allows his remarks to pass without challenge or consequence, I'd say so, yeah. Every now and then Robertson goes totally off the deepend, but if you're under the impression that most of Robertson's apocalyptic beliefs are well outside of the mainstream of American belief, you've been away too long. He's regularly awarded by Christian organizations, and even our own government. He's got a direct line to the President. The Left Behind series, which are a kind of Christian science fiction based on the belief system that Robertson promulagtes, are the most popular books for adults in the nation. Creationism is supported by slightly more than half of American adults.You tell me if Robertson can be relied upon, most of the time, to be saying things that Americans largely agree on. If his statements have been condemned by public Muslims in the middle east, I missed it. I'd be glad to read where that occured. I don't know. There may very well have been persons there who had a negative attitude towards homosexuality but didn't believe in murder, or that a boy's funeral should become a place to promulgate hatred. Go home. Go somewhere else. Get my friends to make it clear that these people should find somewhere else to protest.Make a big deal about how I'm not with these assholes. It's nobody's responsibility but mine to control what messages I send, either explicitly or implicitly, about what positions I hold. It's nobody's responsibility to read my mind. I guess I'm not even sure what we're discussing, now. If you believe you're rebutting the position that every Muslim is an anti-Semite, then you're arguing a strawman. But Islam needs to address the problem of anti-Semitic leaders who keep leaping to the forefront and pretend to speak for everybody, just as America needs to address the problem of Pat Robertson. It's the same phenomenon, as you've been pointing out. And it's made worse by the fact that in both of these cases, neither of these figures are all that far out of the mainstream in their respective cultures.

If somebody spoke for a group, and everyone in that group agreed, what would that look like from the outside?If somebody spoke for a group, and everyone else disagreed voiciferously, what would that look like from the outside?What does Muslim culture in the middle east look like from the outside? This last point is the point under contention. I believe it looks one way, you believe it looks another. I'm asking you to support your assertions. Because crowds are self-assembling. If 20 people want something, and 200 people don't, it doesn't happen, all things being equal. The only way for the minority to control the majority is by wielding disproportionate force. Yeah. I think all of Islam needs to address the problem, not just Muslims in the middle east. Well, no, of course not. If you criticize Israel you're an anti-Semite, according to the pro-Israel lobby. Agreed, though I presume you're not offering that as an excuse.

I've been to things that turned into riots. Do you know what I did when the riot started?I left, because I didn't want to be part of a riot. If you stay and riot, then you're pretty obviously doing something you want to do, even if that wasn't your original intent.

If you go to a Nazi rally, should I assume you're a member of the Simon Weisenthal Society?If you go to a KKK meeting, should I presume that you support affirmative action for black people?

Just answer the question, Holmes. It's not a tough one. Envision any circumstance you like; just tell me what it looks like. I've already provided what support I think is necessary to demonstrate that there's a considerable anti-Semitic streak within Muslim culture in the middle east. This is an analysis shared by other observers of that region. Atheism is not a religion, and I don't claim brotherhood with all atheists. On the other hand, Islam does claim that its adherents have a stronger fundamental connection between each other than to others outside the faith.When I imply that Muslims as a whole are linked into a community where there's some amount of shared responsibility for their actions, I'm not making that up. That's what Islam is telling me. I'm just taking them at their word. Some things you need to hear from someone you consider on your side. For instance, witness how rarely the evolutionist moderators here are at managing creationists, compared to creationist moderators doing the same thing.

If you go to a protest and the people there say they want to kill Bush, why should I assume you're at an anti-war protest and not a kill Bush protest? If I see you at a protest and the protestors there are saying they want to kill Westerners, why should I assume you're at an anti-cartoon protest and not a kill-westerners protest?Your reasoning is circular; you assume the position of the protest you're at, but its the nature of the protest, the position of the protest, that is at the very heart of the question.

Ok, so now we've got two sets of signs.How am I supposed to know if it's "kill Bush" people at an anti-war rally, or anti-war people at a "kill Bush" rally?Isn't it more reasonable to conclude that everybody is at an anti-war/kill Bush rally? That it's all just one rally demonstrating for both points at once? You tell me. Did you march with the IRA terrorists? Were you at their rallies, or were they at yours? How am I supposed to tell?

Look, let's not pretend like it's just one guy here with one sign, ok? We're talking about a very significant portion of the protestors in question.You guys are being ridiculious. If you can't tell a person's position by the position they demonstrate for, and allow others to demonstrate for on their behalf, how do we know anything about what anybody holds?If I look at a crowd of marching people, clearly all part of one rally, am I supposed to interview every single goddamned one to try to establish what the hell the rally is about? Or isn't it sufficient to glance at the signs?